Skip to comments.The GOP's suicide pact
Posted on 11/28/2009 7:56:03 AM PST by publius1
... The so-called purity test is a 10-point checklist -- a suicide pact, really -- of alleged Republican positions...
James Bopp Jr., chief sponsor of the resolution and a committee member from Indiana, has said that "the problem is that many conservatives have lost trust in the conservative credentials of the Republican Party."
Actually, no, the problem is that many conservatives have lost faith in the ability of Republican leaders to think. The resolutions aren't so much statements of principle as dogmatic responses to complex issues that may, occasionally, require more than a Sharpie check in a little square.
It's too bad that "elite" and "nuance" have become bad words in the Republican lexicon. Elites are viewed in Republican circles as "those people" who are out of touch with "real Americans." And "nuance," the definition of which suggests a sophisticated approach to understanding (as opposed to "Because I said so, case closed") has come to be viewed as a Frenchified word Republicans successfully hung on presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004. His flip-floppery on issues became associated with nuance, a.k.a. lack of decisiveness. Ergo, a lack of leadership skills.
It was superb message manipulation, if you go for that sort of thing. But it was also pandering to America's inner simpleton....
Most of us know that decisiveness isn't always a virtue, yet those pushing the purity test seem to view nuance as an enemy of conservatism. The old elite corps of the conservative movement, men such as William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk, undoubtedly would find this attitude both dangerous and bizarre. When did thinking go out of style?...
Whatever the intent of the authors, the message is clear: Thinking people need not apply. The formerly elite party of nuanced conservatism might do well to revisit its nonideological roots.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And then -- "Thinking people need not apply."
The insane part of this is trying to use Bill Buckley on her side in this -- Buckley who engineered the elimination of the Objectivists, the NRA, and Pat Buchanan from the core conservative movement. Buckley would never have seen conservatism as a club that anyone can join where principles are optional.
She suggests that we revisit our "noniodeological roots." How about that, for a party birthed in opposition to slavery? What would she have written in those days?
>>How about that, for a party birthed in opposition to slavery? What would she have written in those days?
Since everything liberals do is designed to preserve or bring back slavery in some form, I’d say that she would have written the same thing in 1860 or 1960.
Sad truth is many in the GOP will turn to the Post for advise on how to save the party.
She also has no clue as to what Russell Kirk meant by “ideology.”
She might be right by hinting that Russell Kirk might not be a Republican today. But he wouldn’t be a Republican because he was a True Conservative.
It really IS this simple : freedom works. While I’m touched by the “concern” the left has I’m not taking advice from our sworn enemy about what choices are to be made.
Sure, the GOP should take the advice of Obama-supporter Kathleen Parker in how to engineer a return to power.
Wonder how long it took her to "decide" to leave that bit of inanity in her essay...
It will be okay as long as they don't turn to the Post for "advice".
I love it when libs are sooo deeply concerned for our party and its survival.
What we need in Washington is a bunch of no thinking simpletons. The kind that wouldn’t be smart enough to devise a nuanced rational on how to stimulate the economoy with more deficit spending.
Kathleen Parker has no credibility.
another fine house conservative, Kathleen Parker, trotted out. She and David Frum need to get a room.
If The Post doesn’t like it, they’re doing the right thing.....for a change.
Here’s a novel idea.
Let the people choose our candidates.
They're also the same folks who led us into the wilderness for 50 dry years, and seek to do it again by telling us RWR & WFB would've wanted it that way. No sale.
What’s the difference between Mary Landrieu and Kathleen Parker?? 300 MILLION DOLLARS is the ONLY difference .
I don’t think he’d be interested, if you know what I mean...
1. knowledgeable and cultured: knowledgeable about the ways of the world, self-confident, and not easily deceived
Seems we are that, what she accuses us of not being.
These are basic, decent, requirements...nothing super radical here. You--the LameStream Media keep packaging it in these "horrible" bundles, but it's not...and the REST of America is ONTO you...we KNOW the truth!
That could be because all those "elite" aristocrats use their "nuance" to deceive us.
This all reads like a defense of situational ethics, which is, at its very base, a pseudo-science built using big words to explain away bad behavior. I wonder if Kathleen Parker and Maureen Dowd get together at functions to swap funny stories to amuse their cats in front of the TV trays.
Speaks volumes about where this pathetic little harpy is coming from...
That’s right, take advice from the experts at the comPost. Their declining circulation proves that they appear to be doing quite well at committing suicide themselves.
Why even bother posting this junk? The woman’s a partisan idiot.
All you accomplish is making more people aware of the Washington Post and Kathleen Parker. Meanwhile conservative newspapers that need the web hits, like mine, and writers, like me, who can use the exposure, don’t get it.
My regrets for being self-serving, however, it’s awfully discouraging for me and others to see postings on here and other conservative forums from the WaPost NYT LA Times MSNBC et al.
Guess what, Limbaugh has been complaining about the liberal media for over 20 years. So has Accuracy in Media, Media Research Center and many others.
So I think everybody in the world, who is willing to listen, knows that the mainstream media is liberal. It’s not news anymore. Just like the fact that Hollywood is liberal is not news.
Yet, I would be willing to bet that most people here cannot name 10 conservative newspapers, 10 conservative novelists, 10 conservative actors or filmmakers and other artists.
I know because I started Creative Conservatives Corner on FB and very few people can name them.
Because conservatives are more obsessed with ridiculing liberals than they are listening, reading, or watching conservatives in books,newspapers, music, tv and movies.
Did Kathleen actually read the 10 points? I was startled when I read another article attacking them at how UNcontroversial they were. To wit:
1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obamas stimulus bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership
You only need to pass on 8, in recognition of Reagan’s approach “80% cooperation is good enough”.
Nothing on amnesty for illegal aliens; nothing opposing abortion, other than not funding it from the Federal government.
The very basicness of these ten renders Kathleen’s “unthinking” argument silly. I’d like to see what she objects to; what requires nuance? The 2nd amendment? DOMA?
Too much thinking and not enough action, that is a problem too.
Kathleen Parker is utterly disconnected from reality.
Par for the course for a compost op-ed writer.
Is it that conservatives would rather get aggravated and hate the Washington Post, instead of being informed and encouraged by my newspaper?
I guess being aggravated is a form of entertainment - kind of like going to horror movies and being scared silly. Yet, this is why Phil Donahue was on the air for so long. Normal people used to tune in to listen to his leftwing rants.
The only way youre going to get rid of the liberal MSM is by not patronizing it. That is until Obama takes over the entire economy and then you wont have a choice.
So rather than read this idiotic partisan op-ed in a leftwing newspaper, read an intelligent op-ed in a rightwing newspaper or read a novel by a conservative or watch a conservative tv show or movie or listen to conservative music - this will provide you with the intellectual ammunition you need to combat the liberal spin and eventually spread conservative ideas. At least I think so.
One thing I know for certain, reading some nitwit liberal columnist in a nitwit liberal newspaper aint gonna do it.
By engaging in projection to this extent, she proves she's a liberal.
Liberals don't think: they superciliously regurgitate other people's talking points ("didn't you get the memo?") in a fatuous manner.
However (and I'm probably being dogmatic and unsophisticated, in Kathleen Parker's view), I notice a curious omission.
Where is the Republicans' insistence that candidates and office-holders adhere to the guiding document of the United States government, the U.S. Constitution?
Or is that only a piece of paper these days?
What could those possibly be? That has to be one of the most nonsensical phrases I have ever read. All of ones political "roots" are based in ideology - even the morons on the left know this. They stick to their roots no matter how much lying they do. It's why they are ahead now.
The Republican party should take no “gifts” from the WaPo and the NYT. Both harbor malevolence for the Republican party. They knew that McVain was a loser for the 2008 election and that is why they hyped him, helping him gain votes from MSM-addicted Republican voters in the primaries.
No, nuanced means thinking of methods to be disingenuous, so the proper description is "liars need not apply".
Kathleen Parker commits the standard mortal sin of liberals, applying a false definition to a term used to describe an unethical unacceptable behavior.
But then what would you expect from the Compost? Certainly not disingenuous disinformation disguised as reporting.
No one in his right mind should ever call either Kathleen Parker or David Brooks a conservative. They both are elitist liberals masquerading as conservatives.
She suggests that we revisit our "noniodeological roots."
So party trumps all principles, eh Kat? Surprise, surprise, surprise!
This nuance B.S. is nothing but wishy washy relativism that has gotten our party to where it is now.
Why are you so vehemently against people educating themselves on the arguments their enemies use? Staying in your conservative shell ain’t going to do a whole lot of good.
So the answer to avoid making good on this nuance is to continually be in a financial crisis. Then you never have to worry about appeasing those who are ticked off about the pork pie.
You can not make laws based upon the exception, which is exactly what we're doing now. Everything is based upon the exception. Even illegal aliens - Oh, we only want to go out and deport the criminals. That would be every one of them. But we have to ensure fairness, so the process is long. How can it be long? Where were you born? What is your birth date? Do you have a birth certificate? Do you have proof of citizenship? Five minutes. Just go sit in that cell over there while we send for your birth certificate, or you can just be deported right now.
But we turn it into this strange months long drama, because we make laws based upon the exception. Well, what if the parents should have gotten an American birth certificate, but instead got one in Mexico? What of it? Is there a process to apply to come to the United States? Yes? Then there's your answer. Include directions to the US consulate where they can fill out the appropriate forms.
He was insane when he did that, now he's better. Congratulations, we can skip on to the penalty phase of the trial. There's no need to prove the person did it, they just admitted they did, and are claiming mitigating circumstances. Same with the Twinkee defense, the bad home defense, the my Mom was a drug abuser.. Trial's over, we're deciding punishment now.
Being compassionate in determining how to deal with a problem is acceptable, trying to twist the problem into nonexistence is a whole new problem. We have no need for nuanced positions, nor those who feel that they're the elites talking down to the people. The only way this can become a suicide pact is if we let everything we stand for, the choice we give voters, to become so marshmallow that no one is sure where we stand.
For example, see John McCain.
K. Parker (a.k.a. “I am more refined than Silly Sarah Palin), is a complete loser. She writes for others inside the Beltway in order to still be invited to the right parties. No one cares, or even knows, who she is outside her cozy circle.
Exactly. Nothing controversial in this list (it could go farther). A party must stand for something or it stands for nothing (like Dem-lite KP who must want to ditch 8&9).
This list exposes KP and her ilk to be even worse than the old Rockefeller Republicans.
A typical WaPo diverting/deflecting from the Dems own suicide pact...
Principles must be broad.
In my view this principle may be too narrow.
In my view this principle should read more like
"We support victory in all military engagements once troops are committed to the fight by supporting military-recommended troop surges and material logistical support."
Once troops have been committed to the fight the country owes it to the troops to give them every opportunity to succeed. This applies to every engagement not just Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is also absolutely necessary for the prestige and security of this country.
But as a general rule when one is writing down the principles by which one will judge ones comrades by they must be necessarily broad because the future holds unknown trials and one must have the freedom to act with in those principles.
To me this shows that Ms. Parker has a very poor grasp of logic. She states that Bopps principles are overly broad and then gives as an example a principle that is very specific.
Kathleen Parker is a Colin Powell/Lincoln Chafee Republican.
...NOT to be taken seriously at all.
I think actually she was a Rommney supporter....same difference.
People need to be educated that there are liberal newspaper columnists who give Republicans erroneous advice?
Why are you so reluctant to patronize conservative newspapers and writers?
President Reagan was also a staunch defender of protecting the integrity of private property rights from government regulation. See March 22, 1988 Presidential Executive Order 12630 (E.O. 12630), and June 30, 1988 “Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings”
Regulation should be founded on protecting the general public health, safety and morals from substantial injury. The Constitution of the United States defers the vast majority of the power to regulate to the states, not the federal government. Eminent domain should be anchored in serving a legitimate public purpose.
Advancement of a public benefit through regulation constitutes a fifth amendment takings that is subject to the payment of just compensation. Property rights were a significant political issue in President Reagan’s administration. It deserves to be included in the ten.
The liberals never seem to tire of giving advice to conservatives. It’s like having the Big Bad Wolf at the door as he explains why you should let him come inside. And I love how they abuse the word ‘nuance’, which now is code speech for why you shoud not believe what you see. It’s absolutely Orwellian and as big a lie as ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’.
Nailed it...8 and 9 just stick in Parker’s craw...the party would be much better off without her...and some others I know..